I do not see how WvW could be anything but primarily zergs. There is power in numbers. The "skill gap" in MMOs is not huge.
Introducing some diminishing returns aspect to zerging would cause more trouble than it's worth.
I'm interested to hear what improvements people think should be made to WvW's mechanics.
I'm puzzled by the regularity of this complaint as well. These are massive battlefields accomodating hundreds of simultaneous players across mutliple maps- under what criteria could rallying massive armies
not be the basic tactical component?
If we can grant the premise that it is necessary, ideally what everyone should want is for there to be viable ways to contribute to your world
without participating in a zerg. But these
already exist. 5-10 man havoc squads can stay in continuous motion, flipping camps and interrupting supply routes while the zerg barrels on sieging towers and keeps. A small group can complete the mercenary events and give their world a slight edge on a given map. Pairs or individuals can act as scouts, stationing themselves at high vantage points and relaying crucial information to their world's commanders. If doing none of the above interest you at any given moment, you can even take a breather and do the jumping puzzles. Getting free blueprints is helping out future encounters when having siege or not having it may become the deciding factor in victory or defeat.
Now, as far as countering the nature of the zerg (numbers conquer all!), I believe there were two critical changes in this patch:
-No more culling means that you can see a zerg coming and see how big it is. This is huge. You can decide whether it is worthwhile for your party/guild/squad to try to hold the line in combat, or employ a tactical retreat, sacrificing the objective you were working on for the ability to regroup and hit something else- hopefully with the element of surprise as the enemy zerg stays focused on the remaining members of your own.
-The changes to the outmanned buff mean that consciously engaging in combat scenarios where the odds are overwhelmingly against you will a) no longer carry any financial penalty whatsoever, unlike death for the greater force, and b) actively reward you for the effort with increased World XP. This is tremendous incentive to participate in "losing battles" rather than simply allow the enemy to run literally uncontested, and everyone should welcome the change with open arms.
As to the future, and how the mechanics of WvW could be further refined:
-More types of siege with more niche or unique functions
-More events that can be completed by small groups or individual to provide slight tactical advantages to their server
-In-game diplomacy options for the second and third-place teams to call for a temporary alliance complete with UI changes to have force and effect for those not paying attention (invaders from that world appear as green/allies for 1 hour) or at least tools for the commanders of each force to communicate with one another. As it stands, it is
always in the best interest of the team in the #1 slot to employ "divide and conquer" tactics; maintaining a healthy number of capped points that can be defended or reclaimed easily, the top team can watch in delight as whichever victor emerges in a battle between teams two and three ultimately reflects a victory for the top team. Thus the struggle often becomes a race for who can get second place that week, with the team at the top having little to worry about by the end of the cycle.
edit: @Jest: I like your ideas about non-Zerg activities providing better consistent loot drops than sticking with a Zerg, to provide incentive to seek out other activities. However, this is unlikely to shift the distribution all that notably alone, because it doesn't actively change the required tactics for success, only the rewards for engaging in certain parts of them. Unless the rewards were so dramatically better for doing one thing over any other that it was impossible to resist (say, a guaranteed rare
), the distribution of players doing different things in WvW is likely to reflect what the distribution would be like if there were no item rewards at all- meaning that the loot is likely secondary to the desire to win for most participating.